TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Forward Pressure

Some numbers, courtesy of covid isolation, taken from the AFL app after round seven (per game averages):

Tackles: 53.9 ranked 12th, -8.5 behind the benchmark
Tackles inside 50: 12.0 ranked 2nd, -0.3
Intercepts: 65.9 ranked 15th, -8.8

No. Pressure Acts —> no. Pressure Acts per tackle, per intercept possession, etc.

Martin: 7.5 (Below Average) —> 3.75 per tackle, 6.3 per intercept, 10.7 per score launch, 3.3 per shot
Fisher: 18.6 (Elite) —> 8.9 per tackle, 10.9 per intercept, 31 per score launch, 18.6 per shot
Owies: 15.4 (Above Average) —> 3.6 per tackle, 11.8 per intercept, 38.5 per score launch, 9.1 per shot
Durdin: 13.2 (Average) —> 5.7 per tackle, 13.2 per intercept, 26.4 per score launch, 10.2 per shot

Martin is amongst the least pressure forwards, but when he does get a hold of you, trouble ensues.
Fisher has an elite number of pressure acts, but can only stick a couple of tackles per game. His intercepts are above average for a forward, but they only convert into scores 35% of the time.
Owies is one of the elite tacklers in the game, both inside 50 and across the ground. His scoring stats are average to below average.
Durdin is just average, which is alright having just turned 20. His stats confirm what most fans perceive - that he just needs to get himself to more contests.

Some opposition numbers. for comparison:

Cameron: 12.7 —> 4.7 per tackle, 5.5 per intercept, 12.7 per score launch, 3.3 per shot
Bailey: 23.4 —> 11.1 per tackle, 21.3 per intercept, 21.3 per score launch, 6.5 per shot
Ah Chee: 8 —> 5 per tackle, 2.4 per intercept, 13.3 per score launch, 13.3 per shot
McCarthy: 15.9 —> 4.8 per tackle, 15.9 per intercept, 15.9 per score launch, 6.9 per shot

Schultz: 17.7 —> 4.7 per tackle, 9.8 per intercept, 25.7 per score launch, 5.1 per shot
Walters: 18.4 —> 5.9 per tackle, 20.4 per intercept, 30.7 per score launch, 7.7 per shot
Switkowski: 21.3 —> 4.8 per tackle, 10.7 per intercept, 12.5 per score launch, 10.1 per shot
Frederick: 14.4 —> 6.9 per tackle, 11.1 per intercept, 20.6 per score launch, 7.6 per shot

Neal-Bullen: 23.8 —> 4.6 per tackle, 7.9 per intercept, 13.2 per score launch, 18.3 per shot
Close: 13.9 —> 5.2 per tackle, 6.9 per intercept, 12.6 per score launch, 6 per shot
Ginnivan: 11.8 —> 7.9 per tackle, 6.9 per intercept, 11.8 per score launch, 3.2 per shot
Higgins: 14.5 —> 9.7 per tackle, 20.7 per intercept, 18.1 per score launch, 2.7 per shot

Unfortunately, the app doesn’t tell us the number of physical pressure acts (where a player makes contact, including tackles, that forces a hurried disposal). Nor do they tell us the number of pressure acts that result in an intercept or repeat entry (score launches begin at the possession, free kick or knock on). The box scores in the Herald Sun include a total pressure points metric, which is weighted towards the physical, but I can’t bring myself to pay for news content.

They do tell us the number of defensive half pressure acts, which is only a bit of maths away from the number of forward half pressure acts. As a group, the four smalls are split roughy 80/20 in favour of the forward half.

Incumbent Bigs: Curnow, McKay, Silvagni
Incumbent Smalls: Durdin, Fisher, Martin, Owies

Next Bigs: De Koning, Kemp, McDonald, McGovern
Next Smalls: Cuningham, Ed Curnow, Fogarty, Honey, Motlop, Philp

Collectively, the four incumbent smalls contribute 5.31 scores per game. The three bigs (Harry, Charlie, Jack) contribute 6.31 per game. So, you might think that in an average game, the first choice group can be expected to put 11.62 out of the overall 23.4 scores on the board...

However, we’ve played just the three games (Tigers, Port & Norf) with the full group. In those games, they average almost 18 scores. When Fogarty comes in, the group averages closer to 15. The Hawthorn game (De Koning) saw the forward group put 14 scores on the board. The Freo game (also De Koning) is an aberration, since we went one down in the first quarter.

In the three games where De Koning played as an 8th forward, that group averaged 16 out of 24 scores.

Small sample, but you would be a little wary that the two-ruck set up doesn’t add much to the scoreboard, and the ‘next man up’ amongst the smalls is having a negative effect on the group.

There is only one pure forward (a small) amongst the entire reserve group. Three of the bigs are already deployed elsewhere (when fit & able), with the fourth heading in the same direction.

Half of the reserve group are recovering from significant (6-12 month) injuries. Only one of them, the rookie, has avoided being sidelined for that amount of time. It’s a similar story with the incumbents.

Physicality is what we’ve been missing from our forwards and, if the ‘next man up’ is coming from those reserves, there’s no instant upgrade.

The top teams aren’t overly physical, but they hunt in packs. Bailey, Cameron & McCarthy are this season’s gold standard. Close, Miers, & Stengle are on a similar level. In both cases, the small units are well supported by elite bigs.
We’ve seen first hand what Switkowski, Schultz & Walters are capable of & while they might be up to the task, Taberner isn’t a factor once the ball comes to ground or he’s called on to defend the rebound from a stoppage.
Gresham, Butler & Higgins are probably a level below again, though still ahead of us.

The reigning champs Neal-Bullen, Pickett & Spargo are difficult to judge because they are supported by a midfield that brings a rare breed of pressure - the pack is so much bigger than everyone else. Where we’re looking for forward pressure, their hunting ground is defined by the white line that runs the circumference of the playing field. In truth, they’re almost all mid-forwards or forward-mid. Our group were certainly drafted as ball-winning, hybrid forwards but the Dees are confirmed at AFL level.

Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher.
Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play.

bondiblue wrote:

I suspect, if there was a breakdown of the total pressure acts, Fisher would be exposed as a bit of a fraud… BUT, if there was greater pressure from the pack, his pressure might be enough for a teammate to come in and cause the turnover.

Fisher, Martin and Silvagni have been the ones getting sucked up the ground to provide the links where the fat side wingers should be. When combined with Harry & Charlie’s short leashes from the goal posts, it creates a no-man’s land on the rebound.

Crusader wrote:

bondiblue wrote:

Isn't that why Saad, Williams and Docherty are so important off half back to run the ball and get it over that "no-mans land" as you call it?

bondiblue wrote:

Crusader wrote:

bondiblue wrote:

Why can’t Owies and Durdin live in no man’s land?

sinbagger wrote:

Crusader wrote:

bondiblue wrote:

Why can’t Owies and Durdin live in no man’s land?

because then it wouldnt be called no-mans land

Author:	Crusader [ Thu May 05, 2022 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Forward Pressure
Some numbers, courtesy of covid isolation, taken from the AFL app after round seven (per game averages): Tackles: 53.9 ranked 12th, -8.5 behind the benchmark Tackles inside 50: 12.0 ranked 2nd, -0.3 Intercepts: 65.9 ranked 15th, -8.8 No. Pressure Acts —> no. Pressure Acts per tackle, per intercept possession, etc. Martin: 7.5 (Below Average) —> 3.75 per tackle, 6.3 per intercept, 10.7 per score launch, 3.3 per shot Fisher: 18.6 (Elite) —> 8.9 per tackle, 10.9 per intercept, 31 per score launch, 18.6 per shot Owies: 15.4 (Above Average) —> 3.6 per tackle, 11.8 per intercept, 38.5 per score launch, 9.1 per shot Durdin: 13.2 (Average) —> 5.7 per tackle, 13.2 per intercept, 26.4 per score launch, 10.2 per shot Martin is amongst the least pressure forwards, but when he does get a hold of you, trouble ensues. Fisher has an elite number of pressure acts, but can only stick a couple of tackles per game. His intercepts are above average for a forward, but they only convert into scores 35% of the time. Owies is one of the elite tacklers in the game, both inside 50 and across the ground. His scoring stats are average to below average. Durdin is just average, which is alright having just turned 20. His stats confirm what most fans perceive - that he just needs to get himself to more contests. Some opposition numbers. for comparison: Cameron: 12.7 —> 4.7 per tackle, 5.5 per intercept, 12.7 per score launch, 3.3 per shot Bailey: 23.4 —> 11.1 per tackle, 21.3 per intercept, 21.3 per score launch, 6.5 per shot Ah Chee: 8 —> 5 per tackle, 2.4 per intercept, 13.3 per score launch, 13.3 per shot McCarthy: 15.9 —> 4.8 per tackle, 15.9 per intercept, 15.9 per score launch, 6.9 per shot Schultz: 17.7 —> 4.7 per tackle, 9.8 per intercept, 25.7 per score launch, 5.1 per shot Walters: 18.4 —> 5.9 per tackle, 20.4 per intercept, 30.7 per score launch, 7.7 per shot Switkowski: 21.3 —> 4.8 per tackle, 10.7 per intercept, 12.5 per score launch, 10.1 per shot Frederick: 14.4 —> 6.9 per tackle, 11.1 per intercept, 20.6 per score launch, 7.6 per shot Neal-Bullen: 23.8 —> 4.6 per tackle, 7.9 per intercept, 13.2 per score launch, 18.3 per shot Close: 13.9 —> 5.2 per tackle, 6.9 per intercept, 12.6 per score launch, 6 per shot Ginnivan: 11.8 —> 7.9 per tackle, 6.9 per intercept, 11.8 per score launch, 3.2 per shot Higgins: 14.5 —> 9.7 per tackle, 20.7 per intercept, 18.1 per score launch, 2.7 per shot Unfortunately, the app doesn’t tell us the number of physical pressure acts (where a player makes contact, including tackles, that forces a hurried disposal). Nor do they tell us the number of pressure acts that result in an intercept or repeat entry (score launches begin at the possession, free kick or knock on). The box scores in the Herald Sun include a total pressure points metric, which is weighted towards the physical, but I can’t bring myself to pay for news content. They do tell us the number of defensive half pressure acts, which is only a bit of maths away from the number of forward half pressure acts. As a group, the four smalls are split roughy 80/20 in favour of the forward half. Incumbent Bigs: Curnow, McKay, Silvagni Incumbent Smalls: Durdin, Fisher, Martin, Owies Next Bigs: De Koning, Kemp, McDonald, McGovern Next Smalls: Cuningham, Ed Curnow, Fogarty, Honey, Motlop, Philp Collectively, the four incumbent smalls contribute 5.31 scores per game. The three bigs (Harry, Charlie, Jack) contribute 6.31 per game. So, you might think that in an average game, the first choice group can be expected to put 11.62 out of the overall 23.4 scores on the board... However, we’ve played just the three games (Tigers, Port & Norf) with the full group. In those games, they average almost 18 scores. When Fogarty comes in, the group averages closer to 15. The Hawthorn game (De Koning) saw the forward group put 14 scores on the board. The Freo game (also De Koning) is an aberration, since we went one down in the first quarter. In the three games where De Koning played as an 8th forward, that group averaged 16 out of 24 scores. Small sample, but you would be a little wary that the two-ruck set up doesn’t add much to the scoreboard, and the ‘next man up’ amongst the smalls is having a negative effect on the group. There is only one pure forward (a small) amongst the entire reserve group. Three of the bigs are already deployed elsewhere (when fit & able), with the fourth heading in the same direction. Half of the reserve group are recovering from significant (6-12 month) injuries. Only one of them, the rookie, has avoided being sidelined for that amount of time. It’s a similar story with the incumbents. Physicality is what we’ve been missing from our forwards and, if the ‘next man up’ is coming from those reserves, there’s no instant upgrade. The top teams aren’t overly physical, but they hunt in packs. Bailey, Cameron & McCarthy are this season’s gold standard. Close, Miers, & Stengle are on a similar level. In both cases, the small units are well supported by elite bigs. We’ve seen first hand what Switkowski, Schultz & Walters are capable of & while they might be up to the task, Taberner isn’t a factor once the ball comes to ground or he’s called on to defend the rebound from a stoppage. Gresham, Butler & Higgins are probably a level below again, though still ahead of us. The reigning champs Neal-Bullen, Pickett & Spargo are difficult to judge because they are supported by a midfield that brings a rare breed of pressure - the pack is so much bigger than everyone else. Where we’re looking for forward pressure, their hunting ground is defined by the white line that runs the circumference of the playing field. In truth, they’re almost all mid-forwards or forward-mid. Our group were certainly drafted as ball-winning, hybrid forwards but the Dees are confirmed at AFL level.

Author:	Paddycripps [ Thu May 05, 2022 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Forward Pressure
Executive Summary ?

Author:	bondiblue [ Fri May 06, 2022 10:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Forward Pressure
Crusader wrote: Some numbers, courtesy of covid isolation, taken from the AFL app after round seven (per game averages): Tackles: 53.9 ranked 12th, -8.5 behind the benchmark Tackles inside 50: 12.0 ranked 2nd, -0.3 Intercepts: 65.9 ranked 15th, -8.8 No. Pressure Acts —> no. Pressure Acts per tackle, per intercept possession, etc. Martin: 7.5 (Below Average) —> 3.75 per tackle, 6.3 per intercept, 10.7 per score launch, 3.3 per shot Fisher: 18.6 (Elite) —> 8.9 per tackle, 10.9 per intercept, 31 per score launch, 18.6 per shot Owies: 15.4 (Above Average) —> 3.6 per tackle, 11.8 per intercept, 38.5 per score launch, 9.1 per shot Durdin: 13.2 (Average) —> 5.7 per tackle, 13.2 per intercept, 26.4 per score launch, 10.2 per shot Martin is amongst the least pressure forwards, but when he does get a hold of you, trouble ensues. Fisher has an elite number of pressure acts, but can only stick a couple of tackles per game. His intercepts are above average for a forward, but they only convert into scores 35% of the time. Owies is one of the elite tacklers in the game, both inside 50 and across the ground. His scoring stats are average to below average. Durdin is just average, which is alright having just turned 20. His stats confirm what most fans perceive - that he just needs to get himself to more contests. Some opposition numbers. for comparison: Cameron: 12.7 —> 4.7 per tackle, 5.5 per intercept, 12.7 per score launch, 3.3 per shot Bailey: 23.4 —> 11.1 per tackle, 21.3 per intercept, 21.3 per score launch, 6.5 per shot Ah Chee: 8 —> 5 per tackle, 2.4 per intercept, 13.3 per score launch, 13.3 per shot McCarthy: 15.9 —> 4.8 per tackle, 15.9 per intercept, 15.9 per score launch, 6.9 per shot Schultz: 17.7 —> 4.7 per tackle, 9.8 per intercept, 25.7 per score launch, 5.1 per shot Walters: 18.4 —> 5.9 per tackle, 20.4 per intercept, 30.7 per score launch, 7.7 per shot Switkowski: 21.3 —> 4.8 per tackle, 10.7 per intercept, 12.5 per score launch, 10.1 per shot Frederick: 14.4 —> 6.9 per tackle, 11.1 per intercept, 20.6 per score launch, 7.6 per shot Neal-Bullen: 23.8 —> 4.6 per tackle, 7.9 per intercept, 13.2 per score launch, 18.3 per shot Close: 13.9 —> 5.2 per tackle, 6.9 per intercept, 12.6 per score launch, 6 per shot Ginnivan: 11.8 —> 7.9 per tackle, 6.9 per intercept, 11.8 per score launch, 3.2 per shot Higgins: 14.5 —> 9.7 per tackle, 20.7 per intercept, 18.1 per score launch, 2.7 per shot Unfortunately, the app doesn’t tell us the number of physical pressure acts (where a player makes contact, including tackles, that forces a hurried disposal). Nor do they tell us the number of pressure acts that result in an intercept or repeat entry (score launches begin at the possession, free kick or knock on). The box scores in the Herald Sun include a total pressure points metric, which is weighted towards the physical, but I can’t bring myself to pay for news content. They do tell us the number of defensive half pressure acts, which is only a bit of maths away from the number of forward half pressure acts. As a group, the four smalls are split roughy 80/20 in favour of the forward half. Incumbent Bigs: Curnow, McKay, Silvagni Incumbent Smalls: Durdin, Fisher, Martin, Owies Next Bigs: De Koning, Kemp, McDonald, McGovern Next Smalls: Cuningham, Ed Curnow, Fogarty, Honey, Motlop, Philp Collectively, the four incumbent smalls contribute 5.31 scores per game. The three bigs (Harry, Charlie, Jack) contribute 6.31 per game. So, you might think that in an average game, the first choice group can be expected to put 11.62 out of the overall 23.4 scores on the board... However, we’ve played just the three games (Tigers, Port & Norf) with the full group. In those games, they average almost 18 scores. When Fogarty comes in, the group averages closer to 15. The Hawthorn game (De Koning) saw the forward group put 14 scores on the board. The Freo game (also De Koning) is an aberration, since we went one down in the first quarter. In the three games where De Koning played as an 8th forward, that group averaged 16 out of 24 scores. Small sample, but you would be a little wary that the two-ruck set up doesn’t add much to the scoreboard, and the ‘next man up’ amongst the smalls is having a negative effect on the group. There is only one pure forward (a small) amongst the entire reserve group. Three of the bigs are already deployed elsewhere (when fit & able), with the fourth heading in the same direction. Half of the reserve group are recovering from significant (6-12 month) injuries. Only one of them, the rookie, has avoided being sidelined for that amount of time. It’s a similar story with the incumbents. Physicality is what we’ve been missing from our forwards and, if the ‘next man up’ is coming from those reserves, there’s no instant upgrade. The top teams aren’t overly physical, but they hunt in packs. Bailey, Cameron & McCarthy are this season’s gold standard. Close, Miers, & Stengle are on a similar level. In both cases, the small units are well supported by elite bigs. We’ve seen first hand what Switkowski, Schultz & Walters are capable of & while they might be up to the task, Taberner isn’t a factor once the ball comes to ground or he’s called on to defend the rebound from a stoppage. Gresham, Butler & Higgins are probably a level below again, though still ahead of us. The reigning champs Neal-Bullen, Pickett & Spargo are difficult to judge because they are supported by a midfield that brings a rare breed of pressure - the pack is so much bigger than everyone else. Where we’re looking for forward pressure, their hunting ground is defined by the white line that runs the circumference of the playing field. In truth, they’re almost all mid-forwards or forward-mid. Our group were certainly drafted as ball-winning, hybrid forwards but the Dees are confirmed at AFL level. Great effort Crusader. We thank Covid for you time in isolation. Every line is intriguing. I love this line...their hunting ground is defined by the white line that runs the circumference of the playing field... Hope to lift to this level and hope it happens when Carroll, Philp and Cuningham add to the midfield mix. Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher. Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play.

Author:	Crusader [ Fri May 06, 2022 10:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Forward Pressure
bondiblue wrote: Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher. Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play. I suspect, if there was a breakdown of the total pressure acts, Fisher would be exposed as a bit of a fraud… BUT, if there was greater pressure from the pack, his pressure might be enough for a teammate to come in and cause the turnover. Fisher, Martin and Silvagni have been the ones getting sucked up the ground to provide the links where the fat side wingers should be. When combined with Harry & Charlie’s short leashes from the goal posts, it creates a no-man’s land on the rebound.

Author:	carntheblues [ Fri May 06, 2022 11:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Forward Pressure
Crusader wrote: bondiblue wrote: Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher. Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play. I suspect, if there was a breakdown of the total pressure acts, Fisher would be exposed as a bit of a fraud… BUT, if there was greater pressure from the pack, his pressure might be enough for a teammate to come in and cause the turnover. Fisher, Martin and Silvagni have been the ones getting sucked up the ground to provide the links where the fat side wingers should be. When combined with Harry & Charlie’s short leashes from the goal posts, it creates a no-man’s land on the rebound. Isn't that why Saad, Williams and Docherty are so important off half back to run the ball and get it over that "no-mans land" as you call it?

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Forward Pressure http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37479	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Crusader [ Fri May 06, 2022 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Forward Pressure
carntheblues wrote: Crusader wrote: bondiblue wrote: Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher. Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play. I suspect, if there was a breakdown of the total pressure acts, Fisher would be exposed as a bit of a fraud… BUT, if there was greater pressure from the pack, his pressure might be enough for a teammate to come in and cause the turnover. Fisher, Martin and Silvagni have been the ones getting sucked up the ground to provide the links where the fat side wingers should be. When combined with Harry & Charlie’s short leashes from the goal posts, it creates a no-man’s land on the rebound. Isn't that why Saad, Williams and Docherty are so important off half back to run the ball and get it over that "no-mans land" as you call it? For the initial entry, sure. I was referring to the pressure we apply to the opposition’s rebound and how it has been a somewhat fruitless effort.

Author:	sinbagger [ Fri May 06, 2022 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Forward Pressure
Crusader wrote: bondiblue wrote: Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher. Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play. I suspect, if there was a breakdown of the total pressure acts, Fisher would be exposed as a bit of a fraud… BUT, if there was greater pressure from the pack, his pressure might be enough for a teammate to come in and cause the turnover. Fisher, Martin and Silvagni have been the ones getting sucked up the ground to provide the links where the fat side wingers should be. When combined with Harry & Charlie’s short leashes from the goal posts, it creates a no-man’s land on the rebound. Why can’t Owies and Durdin live in no man’s land?

Author:	bender [ Sat May 07, 2022 2:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Forward Pressure
sinbagger wrote: Crusader wrote: bondiblue wrote: Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher. Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play. I suspect, if there was a breakdown of the total pressure acts, Fisher would be exposed as a bit of a fraud… BUT, if there was greater pressure from the pack, his pressure might be enough for a teammate to come in and cause the turnover. Fisher, Martin and Silvagni have been the ones getting sucked up the ground to provide the links where the fat side wingers should be. When combined with Harry & Charlie’s short leashes from the goal posts, it creates a no-man’s land on the rebound. Why can’t Owies and Durdin live in no man’s land? because then it wouldnt be called no-mans land

Author:	sinbagger [ Sat May 07, 2022 10:59 am ]
Post subject:	Forward Pressure
bender wrote: sinbagger wrote: Crusader wrote: bondiblue wrote: Fisher surprised me, a lot. For different reason, Martin did too. Martin brings score involvements moreso than Fisher. Says something perhaps about different roles they are expected to play, or that's a result of the way they play. I suspect, if there was a breakdown of the total pressure acts, Fisher would be exposed as a bit of a fraud… BUT, if there was greater pressure from the pack, his pressure might be enough for a teammate to come in and cause the turnover. Fisher, Martin and Silvagni have been the ones getting sucked up the ground to provide the links where the fat side wingers should be. When combined with Harry & Charlie’s short leashes from the goal posts, it creates a no-man’s land on the rebound. Why can’t Owies and Durdin live in no man’s land? because then it wouldnt be called no-mans land What if they don’t identify as men?

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/